Modern science teaches a heliocentric solar system. Should we teach an alternative, the geocentric model?
Warning: constant() [function.constant]: Couldn't find constant TT_TH8US_LEN in /home/gaia/public_html/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this.php on line 1821
Warning: constant() [function.constant]: Couldn't find constant TT_TH8US_LEN in /home/gaia/public_html/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this.php on line 1821
Warning: constant() [function.constant]: Couldn't find constant TT_TH8US_LEN in /home/gaia/public_html/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this.php on line 1821
Warning: constant() [function.constant]: Couldn't find constant TT_TH8US_LEN in /home/gaia/public_html/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this.php on line 1821
Warning: constant() [function.constant]: Couldn't find constant TT_TH8US_LEN in /home/gaia/public_html/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this.php on line 1821
After all, kids are smart enough aren’t they? We should teach them alternatives to be fair,
just as Creationsits want Intelligent Design as an altnerative to the Theory of Evolution,
do they also wish that astronomy class include the geocentric model of the solar system, with the Earth in the center, and the sun in Earth orbit?
In the interest of fairness?
6 Responses to “Modern science teaches a heliocentric solar system. Should we teach an alternative, the geocentric model?”
Leave a Reply
Yeah, Ptolemy rules!!
actually as a science teacher I do indeed teacher the geocentric solar system
I use it as a way to show what we see and observe is not always what is really happening
its a great intro to Relativity
I even have them work out all the circles in cicels for retrograde
This teaches them to always question what we see to make sure it is the truth
There is a difference between creationism and intelligent design. As to the question…a theory is only valid until proven otherwise. The geocentric theory has obviously been proven false while the heliocentric theory has not. Intelligent Design does not address the development of species as Evolution does. It merely makes the case for the universe as having been designed with intricacy and order. Intelligent Design seeks to find the origin of live all together and speaks very little to the development of life over time. It is possible to believe in both Intelligent Design and Evolutions as theories of the origin and development of life. The biggest problem is that people on both sides of the argument are so irrationally involved that they cannot think clearly about the discussion.
your analogy is about as weak as FDR’s legs
There’s no such thing as an alternative to reality.
I hear where you’re coming from, though.
Teaching Creationism as a "fair alternative" is like teaching kids to jump off of cliffs as a fair alternative to gravity.
In answer to teaching alternatives, sure if they are based on evidence. Design in bioorganisms is plainly in evidence, both aesthetically, synergistically, and due complexity known (and shown) to be un-evolvable.
“There is a difference between creationism and intelligent design.”
Absolutely, although the two have been conflated (Barbara Forrest et al) due to some IDsts (few by today’s count) being yourng earth creationists. ID is based on design inferences, NOT a personal belief, nor does it deny evolution in toto. It accepts evolution for adaptation (survival enhancement), but with design interjected at key points for the addition of complexity and radical body plan revision.
“… always question what we see to make sure it is the truth”
Agreed Lilly, but truth may never be fully known.